Implicating muscular_back → muscular
Link to implication

Reason:

Tag will function similarly to muscular, and it naturally would imply it.

EDIT: The tag implication muscular_back -> muscular (forum #190853) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

-1. Currently we don't imply any specific muscle group to the 'muscular' tag. Additionally, would be more accurate alias it to 'back_muscles' (same meaning, but more popular).

O16 said:
-1. Currently we don't imply any specific muscle group to the 'muscular' tag.

This is what we had the muscles tag for but it got deleted for some reason

now you can either hope for a particular muscle to be visible or you can just search for "very muscular characters," absolutely no middle ground needed apparently

Fenrick said:
This is what we had the muscles tag for but it got deleted for some reason

now you can either hope for a particular muscle to be visible or you can just search for "very muscular characters," absolutely no middle ground needed apparently

We also have 'athletic' for characters with toned musculature, however who aren't muscular (it often is mistagged to muscular characters, though).

O16 said:
We also have 'athletic' for characters with toned musculature, however who aren't muscular (it often is mistagged to muscular characters, though).

Technically speaking, it wouldn't be wrong in such instances. I think that tag is misleading by nature because the term is, in reality, extremely broad. I think a better tag name would be the clunky-sounding but less vague "slightly_muscular" or something.

Fenrick said:
Technically speaking, it wouldn't be wrong in such instances. I think that tag is misleading by nature because the term is, in reality, extremely broad.

I know it, and even tried to find a solution for this issue, but failed.

Fenrick said:
I think a better tag name would be the clunky-sounding but less vague "slightly_muscular" or something.

I) 'slightly_muscular' probably would be mistagged as well, since people may think "if a character is slightly muscular, so it is muscular".

II) The most accurate name would be something like 'toned_but_not_muscular', however it don't sounds good and is too long.

III) We also would need to do something about 'fit', 'athletic' and 'toned' since alias them to new name probably would perpetuate the problem.

O16 said:
I know it, and even tried to find a solution for this issue, but failed.

I) 'slightly_muscular' probably would be mistagged as well, since people may think "if a character is slightly muscular, so it is muscular".

II) The most accurate name would be something like 'toned_but_not_muscular', however it don't sounds good and is too long.

III) We also would need to do something about 'fit', 'athletic' and 'toned' since alias them to new name probably would perpetuate the problem.

so what you're saying is it's a clusterfuck

sounds about right but I think I've derailed things a bit too far. We should address that in a new thread

Fenrick said:
so what you're saying is it's a clusterfuck

Maybe, however there is the possibility of existing a solution hidden somewhere.

Fenrick said:
sounds about right but I think I've derailed things a bit too far. We should address that in a new thread

I asked various times in other threads, if a thread focused in discussions about renaming tags should be created, but my question was ignored/unnoticed.

O16 said:

I) 'slightly_muscular' probably would be mistagged as well, since people may think "if a character is slightly muscular, so it is muscular".

II) The most accurate name would be something like 'toned_but_not_muscular', however it don't sounds good and is too long.

III) We also would need to do something about 'fit', 'athletic' and 'toned' since alias them to new name probably would perpetuate the problem.

Yep. Messy, yet less messy since fit and toned were aliased to athletic, as many were tagging even 'huge' and 'hyper' muscles to toned (your point I).

I remember at one point there was discussion about aliasing out all of the individual muscle groups, as it is unlikely anybody searches based on a single one, aside from possibly abs.

There is something to be said for reinstating the 'muscles' tag as an umbrella for all of the individual bits (aside from abs, as it is a common identifier for the athletic tag on characters who are not overly muscular), and then adding a second specifier as needed such as 'big_', 'huge_', or 'hyper_', just as we do with tags like breasts.

Sharp_Coyote said:
Yep. Messy, yet less messy since fit and toned were aliased to athletic, as many were tagging even 'huge' and 'hyper' muscles to toned (your point I).

"yet less messy"?

Sharp_Coyote said:
[…], as it is unlikely anybody searches based on a single one, aside from possibly abs […].

I don't know about the others, but I personaly desagree, since I find certain muscles more "atractive" than others, like pecs or serratus.

Sharp_Coyote said:
There is something to be said for reinstating the 'muscles' tag as an umbrella for all of the individual bits (aside from abs, as it is a common identifier for the athletic tag on characters who are not overly muscular), and then adding a second specifier as needed such as 'big_', 'huge_', or 'hyper_', just as we do with tags like breasts.

Eh... It just doesn't sounds a good idea to me.

muscular -> chunky_musculature
_________________________
athletic -> petite_musculature

I remember at one point there was discussion about aliasing out all of the individual muscle groups, as it is unlikely anybody searches based on a single one, aside from possibly abs.

And il just add that i also absolutely disagree with this statement. This cannot be any farther from the truth. like o16 im often seeking out specific muscle groups, and same is for most people, some may favor abs but are not likly to like seeing bulky traps or quads too...

Ruku said:
And il just add that i also absolutely disagree with this statement. This cannot be any farther from the truth. like o16 im often seeking out specific muscle groups, and same is for most people ...

If so, where is your empirical evidence?
(so far, it is you, and one other member)

I am not supporting doing away with all muscle groups for tagging, just bringing up that it was discussed in the past, and like most forum topics, there was no consensus.

As a member with 'huge' (muscles) and 'hyper' (everything) blacklisted, extreme musculature is obviously not my thing, yet I am quite a fan of the athletic tag, so I am not necessarily in favour of ditching these tags, just streamlining.